Supreme Court ruled 5–3 in favor of Hamdan (Gitmo) Decision

[Red]

Supreme Court Stupidity; Salim Ahmed Hamdan Decision … SCOTUS 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. military law & the Geneva conventions.

http://tinyurl.com/k7elb

Today the Supreme Court just made this country a little less safe. The Supreme Court ruled 5–3 that President George W. Bush over-stepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for GITMO detainees and that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. military law and the Geneva conventions.

[Anna]

Well, Gee, Red!  I didn't even know the terrorists were signatories to the Geneva Convention or any other one.  They surely don't seem to be abiding by any of the known rules of civilization.  The convention itself, if I remember my history, says it no longer applies when one side is not abiding by it at all in this manner.  

So without their ever signing it, probably never having read it and certainly not abiding by it, suddenly these same terrorists have basically all the rights of citizenship or at the least a legitimate and uniformed, standing army.  

[LouiseVargas]

Amen.

[MominTN]

Basically the Supreme Court just said that President Bush, alone, didn't have the extraordinary power to setup military tribunals to try enemy combatents.  The Congress can pass legislation determining the proper type of court for their trial or give Bush the power to do whatever he wants, the way they did when they gave him the power to go to war in Iraq.
I certainly hope Congress does a better job this time and with advice from the military draws up the type of court marshall trial that will pass the geneva convention.  President Bush doesn't need to become a dictator.  President Bush must think tribunals are more effective than our own judicial courts because,in the trade agreements he promotes, foreign tribunals can decide cases from corporations who sue our nation because we do something against their business interests in our own country. It certainly doesn't pass the Constitution.  I wish our Supreme Court would get busy and act on this matter!

[Red]

Funny ... glad the SCOTUS changed previous law.

Executive powers had already been granted ... hmm ... lets see WWII and in the 1950's

[Red]

TRANSCRIPT OF TELECONFERENCE WITH SENIOR OFFICIALS

REGARDING SUPREME COURT'S RULING IN THE HAMDAN CASE


WASHINGTON, DC


http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/DOJ%20Hamdan%20teleconference.doc


Cut >>>

It's important to outline what is not in the court's ruling today.

Nothing in the holding affects the authority of the president in wartime to detain enemy combatants through the duration of hostilities, an authority the court previously recognized in the Hamdi case.

Likewise, nothing in the holding affects the status of Guantanamo Bay or the continued detention of enemy combatants there one way or the other.

The holding pertains to the 40 or so detainees only who the military has designated for war crime trials because of their particularly heinous alleged conduct.

The holding does not reject the president's authority to try those accused war criminals by military commission; something done throughout our history.

Instead, the Supreme Court's holding indicates the military commissions, as currently constituted by DOD, while robust in affording enemy combatants more process than this or any other country has ever afforded enemy combatants, are not consistent with current congressional statutes, especially the UCMJ and treaty provisions, Common Article 3.

[Anna]

.
I was not aware that the Supreme Court could change existing law.  I thought they could only declare it to be unconstitutional.  Congress makes the laws, not the Court and there was one in place for handling just this situation that is already Settled Law and has been in effect for a very long time.  Things don't just suddenly become unconstitutional when the majority of them become liberal.  Or do they??

They are making an exception of this small group of prisoners just to make their own political statement.  These terrorists do not qaulify for receiving the terms of the Geneva Convention.  No one tried to give Clinton all this grief during the Monica Wars and we hadn't even been attacked by anybody then.  

But it will all even out as this is yet again demonstration that liberals cannot be trusted to maintain any shred of national security in my most humble opinion and it will be remembered in the coming elections for what it is.

.

[MominTN]

.
I was not aware that the Supreme Court could change existing law.  I thought they could only declare it to be unconstitutional.  Congress makes the laws, not the Court and there was one in place for handling just this situation that is already Settled Law and has been in effect for a very long time.  Things don't just suddenly become unconstitutional when the majority of them become liberal.  Or do they??

They are making an exception of this small group of prisoners just to make their own political statement.  These terrorists do not qaulify for receiving the terms of the Geneva Convention.  No one tried to give Clinton all this grief during the Monica Wars and we hadn't even been attacked by anybody then.  

But it will all even out as this is yet again demonstration that liberals cannot be trusted to maintain any shred of national security in my most humble opinion and it will be remembered in the coming elections for what it is.

.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  It's about the justice system for enemy combatents, if that is what they are, and who has the authority to decide how to try them.  Surely you don't think the President has the authority to do whatever he wishes when it comes to a trial without any say from the Supreme Court who by the way are the best in the legal field in order to be in the highest court of this country.  When did President Bush become knowledgeable of trial proceedings or court cases?  And by the way, this country will remember everything that has happened since he was elected, and just how far behind we are in securing this country from invasion, both from terrorism and from trade deficits.  You might want to read some of my front page posts about how this administration cut the funding for terrorism pre 9/11 while multiple meetings occurred with "the energy commission" and OPEC.  They were more concerned with their oil companies, than this country, and still are today.

[Red]

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It's about the justice system for enemy combatents

emeny combatents = terrorits.

Wake up.

The difference is I dont think GWB is a bigger fear than Al Qaeda ... which many that post on DU and Kos do ... as I feel you may as well.

[MominTN]

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It's about the justice system for enemy combatents

emeny combatents = terrorits.

Wake up.

The difference is I dont think GWB is a bigger fear than Al Qaeda ... which many that post on DU and Kos do ... as I feel you may as well.

Do not presume for one minute that I would ever say or think that.  Though it is quite possible that Bush and Cheney will spend an eternity in hell with the very enemy they say they're fighting against, I really do not in anyway compare them to terrorists.  Bush and Cheney are just liars, and possibly convinced of their own lies because of their motives for a world economy that insures their wealth and power from oil companies.

[Tylergal]

I am so sorry I missed this.  I just wonder if it is a lie to or something similar when a woman claiming to be married, attending church, stays on line chatting with young boys and thinks it is okay as long as she does not tell her husband.  Is deceit a lie?  If one adopts the principal from the Bible that to think a sin is to sin, because the sin is in the heart, then we must assume either someone has not read his/her Bible or someone lies about a lot.